America's attempts to appease "Muslim opinion" are depraved and suicidal.

[sheraz 0]

If they burn their tires and buildings in their own cities, it should not bother the west.

They can burn their places all they want and nobody would give a damn. Yet, if it's a western embassy that's set ablaze it's a direct attack on that western country. I don't see how that shouln't bother the west. In times past, the failure of a government to properly protect a foreign diplomatic interest in it's territory was a big deal without anyone trying to make excuses for the unexcusable. In my view, it still is.

The excuse for the unexcusable is terrorism. The might of the US army and several hundred billion dollars have not been able to eradicate terrorism. What can the govt of single country do. If the embassy is not safe, then they should be closed.IF muslims are being irrational, the west should not sit in the same boat. Close the embassy and cut off diplomatic relations. What the media does not show is that 90% of the protest were political. And to prevent people from venting their anger at the West, the west should have minimal relations. The masses never attack a hospital . They know its importance. If they are made to realize the importance of an embassy, they will never attack it.

[Nizzy 1]

If we've got freedon of speech then why did Bush ban pics of dead US troops in coffins be published?

[cmartyn 0]

Thats not an infringement, its more along the lines of a cover up. Like Nuclear accidents.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If they burn their tires and buildings in their own cities, it should not bother the west.

They can burn their places all they want and nobody would give a damn. Yet, if it's a western embassy that's set ablaze it's a direct attack on that western country. I don't see how that shouln't bother the west. In times past, the failure of a government to properly protect a foreign diplomatic interest in it's territory was a big deal without anyone trying to make excuses for the unexcusable. In my view, it still is.

The excuse for the unexcusable is terrorism. The might of the US army and several hundred billion dollars have not been able to eradicate terrorism. What can the govt of single country do. If the embassy is not safe, then they should be closed.IF muslims are being irrational, the west should not sit in the same boat. Close the embassy and cut off diplomatic relations. What the media does not show is that 90% of the protest were political. And to prevent people from venting their anger at the West, the west should have minimal relations. The masses never attack a hospital. They know its importance. If they are made to realize the importance of an embassy, they will never attack it.

Terrorism is no excuse for anything. On either side. That may work for you, the terrorists and the US administration. Ain't working for me.

But let's follow your brilliant scheme here for a second: Close the embassies. Thus, no visas. So, then we can go ahead and cancel all flights to and from those places? Deny landing rights to their airlines here. Don't help those in need. Don't trade. Send back whoever came here from there. Isolate them and ourselves. Move back into caves. Where does it end?

If we've got freedon of speech then why did Bush ban pics of dead US troops in coffins be published?

Because Bush and his crew are a sick fcuks. I am very much opposed to the way in which this administration tramples on our freedom and on our Constituion. They are no better than those they say they're fighting.

[cmartyn 0]

I dont think cutting ties with the middle east would mean moving into caves. 10 dollar gas perhaps. Not much else good comes from there. I think caves are a bit of a stretch.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I dont think cutting ties with the middle east would mean moving into caves. ... I think caves are a bit of a stretch.

I didn't mean that to be taken literally.

[cmartyn 0]

I figured, But I think it meant blessed are all manufacturers of dairy products.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If we've got freedon of speech then why did Bush ban pics of dead US troops in coffins be published?

Because 'freedom of speech' is ultimately self-serving. They can defend it when we see violent protests in the 3rd world condemning our right to express distasteful and offensive imagery (I agree with Sheraz that last month's protests were deliberately orchestrated and primarily political in nature), but condemn the same freedom of expression when it involves dealing with the actualities of a very unpopular war. Bush et al like to control public discourse on the 'war on terror', wittering on about 'freedom and liberty', 'fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to face them over here' etc. They don't want people to see the unpleasant reality of war, because ultimately it takes the focus away from their high-sounding rhetoric.

Edited March 4, 2006 by Fishdude

[Satisfaction 1]

In 1994, the Hutus used the national radio in Rwanda to spread their hate speeches and to incite to genocide with words like "go kill these cocaroaches" and "the graves are not yet full".

Free speech is like a gun. It is safe only when it is in the right people's hands.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In 1994, the Hutus used the national radio in Rwanda to spread their hate speeches and to incite to genocide with words like "go kill these cocaroaches" and "the graves are not yet full".

Free speech is like a gun. It is safe only when it is in the right people's hands.

Who's hands are safe I wonder...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In 1994, the Hutus used the national radio in Rwanda to spread their hate speeches and to incite to genocide with words like "go kill these cocaroaches" and "the graves are not yet full".

Free speech is like a gun. It is safe only when it is in the right people's hands.

I don't think that the limitation put on free speech and the freedom of the press by this White House can or even should be compared to the hate speech you cite above.

[Satisfaction 1]

"The 1994 genocide in Rwanda provides a telling case study of two quite separate roles for media in a conflict situation. The genocide was among the most appalling catastrophes of the 20th century, and media played a significant part both internally and internationally. Prior to the genocide, radio stations and newspapers were carefully used by the conspirators to dehumanise the potential victims, Rwanda's Tutsi minority. During the genocide, radio was used by the Hutu extremist conspirators to mobilise the Hutu majority, to coordinate the killings and to ensure that the plans for extermination were faithfully executed. (...)You will see how easily the concept of free speech and free press in a local situation can be perverted for foul ends.

http://www.fahamu.org/rwanda.php

In 1994, the Hutus used the national radio in Rwanda to spread their hate speeches and to incite to genocide with words like "go kill these cocaroaches" and "the graves are not yet full".

Free speech is like a gun. It is safe only when it is in the right people's hands.

I don't think that the limitation put on free speech and the freedom of the press by this White House can or even should be compared to the hate speech you cite above.

To a certain extend it does, absolutely. "the concept of free speech and free press in a local situation can be perverted for foul ends".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In 1994, the Hutus used the national radio in Rwanda to spread their hate speeches and to incite to genocide with words like "go kill these cocaroaches" and "the graves are not yet full".

Free speech is like a gun. It is safe only when it is in the right people's hands.

I don't think that the limitation put on free speech and the freedom of the press by this White House can or even should be compared to the hate speech you cite above.

To a certain extend it does, absolutely.

Sure, to a certain extend you can compare Apples and Oranges. They're both fruit...

[Satisfaction 1]

I don't mind free speech to the extend that it doesn't constitute a weapon of advocating violence, and that it can't be used to promote hate or some forms of everyday bigotry. Free speech is OK for me when it can teach tolerance. I disagree of a legal system that does not punish hate speech, and where there is no balancing between speech and respect.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I don't mind free speech to the extend that it doesn't constitute a weapon of advocating violence, and that it can't be used to promote hate or some forms of everyday bigotry. Free speech is OK for me when it can teach tolerance. I disagree of a legal system that does not punish hate speech, and where there is no balancing between speech and respect.

Would you consider publishing pictures of the Prophet as acceptable 'free speech'?